It 668 
.H74 
Copy 1 




CAT J ^^« 



RECONSTRUCTION. 



SPEECH mf^^ 

W«st;.Ee8.HUrt.Soc 



HON. SIDNEY T. HOLMES, OF NEW YORK, 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 10, 1866. 



The House, as in Committee of the Whole on the 
state of the Union, having under consideration the 
President's annual message — 

Mr. HOLMES said: 

Mr. Speaker : The policy to be pursued by- 
Congress with the States and people. lately 
in rebellion is brought to our notice by the 
annual message of the President, now under 
consideration, and it has occupied the atten- 
tion and elicited discussion from some of the 
best minds of the age, both in and out of Con- 
gress. I do not expect that I can at this time 
throw any new light upon this subject, espe- 
cially in the hour allotted to each member in 
tJliis discussion, and which hardly gives time to 
state, much less to examine at any length, the 
different propositions that have been advanced. 

The effect produced by civil war upon the 
relations of these States andtheir people to the 
General Government has been often referred 
to in this debate, and yet I ask the indulgence 
of the House while I read from a well-known 
American author, Chancellor Kent, a concise 
statement of the rights, duties, and disabilities 
growing out of a state of war: 

"It is a well-settled doctrine in the English courts 
and with English jurists, that there cannot exist at 
the same time a war for arms and a peace for com- 
merce. The war puts an end at once to all dealings 
and all communications with each other, and places 
every individual of the respective Governments, as 
well as the Governments themselves, in a state of hos- 
tility. This is equally the doctrine of all the authori- 
tative writers on the law of nations and of the mari- 
time ordinances of all the great Powers of Europe. 
It is equally the received law of this country, and was 
so decided frequently by the Congress of the United 
States during the revolutionary war, and again by 
the Supreme Court of the United States during the 
lastwar; and it is difficult to conceive of a point of 
doctrine more deeply or extensively rooted in thegen- 
eral maritime law of Europe, and in the universal 
and immemovial usage of the wholecommunity ofthe 
civilized world. 

"It follows as a necessary consequence of the doe- 
trine of the illegality of all intercourse or traffic with- 
out express permission, that all contracts with the 
enemy made during war are utterly void. The insur- 



ance of enemies' property is an illegal contract, be- 
cause it is a species of trade and intercourse with the 
enemy. The drawing of a bill of exchange by an alien 
enemy on a subject of the adverse country is an ille- 
gal and void contract, because it is a communication 
and contract. The purchase of bills on the enemy's 
country, or the remission and deposit of funds there, is 
adangerous and illegalact, becauseitmaybecherish- 
ing the resources and relieving the wants of the en- 
emy. The remission of 'funds in money or bills to sub- 
jects ofthe enemy is unlawful. The inhibition reaches 
to every communication, direct or circuitous." 
********** 

"Every relaxation of the rule tends to corrupttho 
.allegiance of the subject and prevents the war from 
fulfilling its end. The only exception to this strict 
and rigorous rule of international jurisprudence is 
the case of ransom-bills, and they are contracts of 
necessity founded on a state of war and engendered by 
its violence." *_ * * * "All commercial 
partnerships existing between the subjects ofthe two 
parties prior to the war are dissolved by the mere 
force and act of the war itself." — 1 Kent' a Com., 78-80; 
Vattel. 321; 16 John Rep., 438; Wildman, vol. 2, p. 8; 
2 Wa^/ace, 258, 419. 

"All the property of the people of the two countries, 
on land or sea, is subject to capture and confiscation 
by the adverse party, as enemy's property." — IBlack, 
666, Opinion of Justice Grier. 

Also, dissenting opinion of Justice Nelson, 
in this case, in which three other justices con- 
curred, describing the effect of war substantially 
as above stated, and holding that after the pas- 
sage of the act of Congress of July 13, 18(il, 
civil wai», with all its rights and obligations, ex- 
isted between the United States and the States 
in rebellion. (See opinion of Nelson at page 
687.) 

This is undoubtedly the strict, rigid rule of 
international law. It is based upon the theory 
that the Government represents every individual 
in the State, and that each individual is, in 
judgment of law, a party to the acts of his own 
Government, and responsible for them. It ig- 
nores, in the first instance, the question whether 
the individual citizen is, or is not, in feeling 
and at heart, an enemy of the nation or State 
with which his Government is at war ; and 
assumes that commercial intercourse is dan- 



^.'^ 






gerous and improper, in time of war, with 
parties occupyiug the position of public ene- 
mies. 

When these well-settled principles of law are 
stated here or elsewhere, our political oppo- 
nents, without solicitation, I trust, immediately 
assume the gratuitous task of defending the 
President and loyal men of the States lately in 
rebellion from the consequences of these doc- 
trines, and from what they are pleased to call 
+he assaults upon them of Union members of 
Jongress, and like all new converts, especially 
those who have sinned longest and strongest, 
and who cannot trace their conversion to any 
mental conviction of sin, they manifest an 
extraordinary and very suspicious zeal in their 
defense. 

Tliey tell us that these principles make the 
President an alien enemy, a usurper of the of- 
fice he now holds, and that they convert the 
States lately in rebellion into foreign nations. 
We have seen strange things in our day, but 
none more strange than this new-born friend- 
ship for the President and loyal men of the 
southern States. Had it manifested itself in 
the early stages of the rel)ellion it would have 
.<aved oceans of blood and millions of treasure. 
Had it come even when, as Governor of Ten- 
nessee, Andrew Johnson was endeavoring to 
protect the loyal men of that State from the 
rebel hordes that infested it, and secure to them 
the rights of electors under a free Government, 
or even if it manifested itself now in favor of 
all loyal men of the South without distinction 
of color, it might be less liable to suspicion 
than it is under the present circumstances. The 
friendship that denounced Governor Johnson as 
a tyrant and usurper, and labored for his polit- 
ical overthrow, and now fawns around President 
Johnson ; that strikes hands with unrepent- 
ant rebels and flatters lo3'al white men in the 
rebel States, while it turns its back upon, and 
shuts its ear against, the patient application for 
a recognition of his rights by the loyal colored 
man, is hardly worth possessing; and if ever the 
time shall come when the President shall be 
reduced to the necessity of relying upon such 
friendship and support, he will be the most un- 
fortunate and unfriended man that the sun ever 
shone upon. May Heaven in its mercy save 
him and the nation from such deep disgrace 
and humiliation. 

But let me examine this question for a few 
minutes, and see what is the legitimate effect 
and Extent of this doctrine, and whether the 
President and loyal people of the southern 
States need or require the services or protec- 
tion of the party that has so magnanimously 
volunteered for their defense. The term pub- 
lic enemy does not necessarily imply an alien 
enemy. A public enemy may be either per- 
manent or temporary; permanent when his 
hostility Is supposed to continue during the 
war, and temporary when it is of shorter dura- 



tion, and exists only in relation to the position 
or business which the party may occupy or be 
engaged in, and terminates when he ceases to 
occupy a hostile position or to carry on a busi- 
ness that is prohibited by the rules of war. 
Permanent resid"ent3 in, and persons owing 
allegiance to, a State at war are regarded as 
permanent enemies. At most, the hostile 
character thus acquired continues only during 
the war. It recedes before the permanent 
occupation of the territory of either State by 
the opposing army ; and the parties that to-day 
without their consent are converted into public 
enemies, without any actual crime on their part, 
and because their Government or State is at 
war, may to-morrow be as suddenly changed 
into friends by being brought Avithin the lines 
and under the jurisdiction of the opposing 
armJ^ The seizure, condemnation, and con- 
fiscation of enemy's property is confined, by 
modern usage, almost exclusively to maritime 
prizes, and such property on land as is partic- 
ularly useful to the enemy in the prosecution 
of the war. The property on land of non-com- 
batants is seldom taken or destroyed except in 
case of necessity, and not for gain. Slavery 
and cotton, the one the cause and the other 
the main reliance of the enemy for means to 
carry on the war against the Union, became the 
legitimate objects of destruction or capture. I 
am not speaking here of those who in a civil 
war are actually engaged in rebellion, but of 
those who are denominated enemies by reason 
of residence in or allegiance to the State in re- 
bellion. As to the former, the right on the 
part of the sovereign Government to except 
any of them from amnesty and punish them 
for participation in the rebellion, although bel- 
ligerent rights may have been conceded them, 
is unquestioned. (2 Black, 606; Yattel, 426.) 
As to the latter, the extent to which the dis- 
abilities of public enemies shall be enforced 
against them during the war rests with each 
belligerent. 

In the case of the Venice, 2 Wallace, 258, 
Chief Justice Chase, in delivering the opinion 
of the court, at page 274, says : 

"The States of Louisiann and Mississippi were wholly 
uuder rebel dominion and all the people of each State 
were enemies of the United States. The rule which 
declares that war makes all the citizens or subjects 
of one belligerent enemies of the Government and of 
al! the citizens orsubjectsof the other applies equally 
to civil and to international wars. Either belligerent 
may modify or limit its operations as to persons or 
territory of the other, but in the absence of such mod- 
ification or restriction, judicial tribunals cannot dis- 
criminate in its application." 

Here we see that either belligerent may modify 
or limit the operation of this rule as to the prop- 
erty, persons, or territory of the other. What 
has been the policy of Congress on this subject 
during the war? I assert that from the com- 
mencement of the war to the present time il 
has been the settled policy of Congress by le- 
gislation, to draw a broad line of distinction 



^ 3 



between loyal and disloyal people in the rebel 
States ; that the former have been protected in 
person and property in every way that it could 
be done with safety to the public interests ; 
that as to them the term public enemy has been 
substantially obliterated, and that it has been 
entirely ignored so far as property on Land is 
concerned. Pardon me Avhile I refer to some 
of the legislation where this disposition or policy 
is distinctly manifested. 

The act of July 13, 1861, authorizes the 
President, by proclamation, to declare what 
States and parts of States are in insurrection, 
and provides that thereupon all commercial 
intercourse with such States and parts of States 
shall cease. But it also provides that the Pres- 
ident may license such trade as he shall think 
best. 

This provision was modified by section nine 
of the act of July 2, 1864, and limited to such 
trade only as should be necessary to supply the 
wants of '"loyal persons" residing in the in- 
surrectionary States. The object of this law 
was to prohibit intercourse of a commercial 
nature with the States in rebellion, and at the 
same time to license or permit it so far as it 
was necessary to supply the wants of loyal 
citizens. 

The act of August 6, 1861, confiscates certain 
property used or permitted to be used in sup- 
port of the rebellion, and liberates or frees all 
slaves so used by consent of their owners. 

The act of July 17, 1862, confiscates the 
property of persons and classes therein men- 
tioned, and who were engaged in the rebellion. 

The act of March 12, 1863, provides for the 
collection and sale of captured or abandoned 
property in the States in insurrection, the pay- 
ment of the proceeds into the Treasury, and 
that the owner at any time within two years 
after the suppression of the rebellion may have 
the proceeds thereof, upon proving that he has 
never aided the rebellion. This act is extended 
by section three of the act of July 2, 1864, so 
as to include all property mentioned in the 
acts of July 13, 1861, and of July 17, 1862, 
commonly called the confiscation laws. And 
by section seven of the act of July 2, 1864, it 
is provided that no property seized or taken 
upon the inland waters of the United States 
by the naval forces thereof shall be regarded 
as maritime prize, but shall be delivered over 
to the proper officer and sold as provided by 
the act of March 12, 1863, for the collection 
and sale of captured or abandoned property. 

We thus see, Mr. Speaker, by this reference 
to some of the principal laws passed during the 
progress of the war that Congress has recog- 
nized in terms the loyal people in the insur- 
rectionary States, permitted the legalizing of 
trade to supply their wants, and provided for 
the collection, preservation, and restoration to 
them of all property which had been abandoned 



by them or captured by the Army or Navy of 
the United States. What else, I ask, could be 
done by Congress to preserve their property 
or rights or satisfy them that they were not to 
be regarded or treated as public enemies of the 
Government? 

For the purpose of showing that I am right 
in thus regarding the effect of the legislation I 
have referred to, I read from the head notes to 
Mrs. Alexander's case, 2 Wallace, 404: 

"The principle that personal dispositions of the 
individual inhabitants of enemy's country as dis- 
tinguished from those of the enemy's jieople gener- 
ally, cannot in questions of capture be inquired into, 
applies in civil wars as in international. Hence all 
the people of any district that was in insurrection 
against the United States in the southern rebellion 
are to be regarded as enemies, except in so far as by 
action of the Government itself that relation may 
have been chan(?ed. 

" Our Government, by its act of Congress of March 12, 
1863, to provide for the collection of abandoned prop- 
erty, itc, docs make distinction between those whom 
the rule of international law would class as enemies; 
and, through forms which it prescribes, protects the 
rights of property of all persons in rebel regions who 
during the rebellion have in fact maintained a loyal 
adhesion to the Government. The general policy of 
our legislation during the rebellion having been to 
preserve for loyal owners obliged by circumstances to 
remain in rebel States all property or its proceeds 
whicli has come to the possession of the Government 
or its officers," 

ihis case, it will be seen, after asserting the 
strict rule of law in relation to public enemies 
and the power of the Government to modify 
it, holds that the act of March 12, 1863, has 
had that e0"ect. and that this has been the set- 
tled policy of the Government from the com- 
mencement of the rebellion, 1 am sorry to 
take from our political opponents any of their 
small stock in trade on this subject, but I am 
compelled to say that no loyal person, black 
or white, in the States lately in insurrection, is 
now to be regarded as a public enemy of the 
United States, and that the President, under 
the strictest construction of international law 
has never been a public enemy. The rebel- 
lion found him a Senator of the United States 
from the State of Tennessee, true to his trust 
when others failed, denouncing and opposing 
secession and all its attendant crimes. When 
as military governor he returned to Tennessee, 
and succeeded as few men could have done 
at that time in upholding and sustaining there 
the authority of the General Government, he 
was as truly and effectually in the service of 
the Government as though he had command 
of its armies in the field. For this he was de- 
nounced as a tyrant and usurper by those who 
now claim to be his special friends and defend- 
ers. The people whose Government he was 
then sustaining elevated him in spite of their 
opposition and detraction to the position by 
virtue of which upon the death of the Pres-, 
ident he assumed the duties of the highest 
and most responsible office in a republican 
government. 



(P. <? 3X r 



The people under our Government are the 
court of last resort for the trial of all public 
men and public measures. They have passed 
upon his loyalty and fidelity during that fear- 
ful struggle, and from that decision there is no 
appeal. And as he values their continued sup- 
port and approval as well as the verdict of im- 
partial history he will shun, as he would shun 
political death, an alliance with the men who 
now seek to do by flattery and simulated sup- 
port what they failed to accomplish by de- 
traction and unscrupulous opposition. He has 
successfully encountered their opposition. He 
cannot outlive their support. 

Much has been said in this discussion upon 
the question whether the States lately in rebel- 
lion are States or Territories ; whether they are 
in the Union or out of the Union? There is 
doubtless, to some extent, a difference of opin- 
ion between members of the Union party upon 
this subject. Much, however, of the apparent 
conflict of opinion arises from the use of differ- 
ent terms designed to express substantially the 
same meaning. All agree that there has been 
a time during the progress of the war when 
these States were not entitled to representation 
either in this or the other and higher branch 
of Congress; when no loyal State government 
was recognized in either of them by any depart- 
ment of the General Government. By some 
their condition at this time has been assumed 
to be out of the Union, or tyhat they had re- 
lapsed into the condition of Territories. Oth- 
ers claim that they were and still are in the 
Union, but that their rights to a greater or less 
extent have been forfeited by their participa- 
tion in the rebellion ; and others still, that their 
functions have only been suspended and their 
vitality impaired. All these terms or expres- 
sions are intended to assert the fact that these 
States have not been in harmony Avith the Gen- 
eral Government ; and that they are not au- 
thorized to resume their relations with that 
Government and exercise all the rights of the 
States that did not participate in the rebellion 
until some power or authority outside of these 
States shall determine that their government, 
institutions, and people are again in harmony 
with the General Government, and that they 
are entitled to share in its duties and responsi- 
bilities and participate again iu the privileges 
it confers. The terms or language used to ex- 
press this condition are of little consequence 
so long as there is a general assent to the con- 
clusions arrived at. 

President Lincoln, in the last speech he 
made, used this language in reference to the 
condition of these States : 

"Wo all agree that the seceded States, so-called, 
are out of their proper practical relations with the 
Dnion, and that the sole object of the Government, 
civil and military, in regard to these States is again 
to got them into that proper practical relation. Let 
us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring 



the proper practical relations between these States 
and the Union, and each forever after innocently 
indulge his own opinion, whether induing these acts 
he brought the States from without into the Union, 
or only gave them proper assistance, they never hav- 
ing been out of it." 

Every one should cheerfully assent to this 
catholic recommendation of the late Presi- 
dent. 

For myself, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe 
that States easily die or cease to exist. They 
may change their form of government, be sub- 
merged by strife and civil war, their relations 
with surrounding States changed, and yet their 
identity preserved, and the Government of to- 
day be liable for the debts and obligations cre- 
ated by its predecessor. (Phillimore, vol. 1, 
pp. 147, 148; Lawrence's Wheaton, 39, 40.) 

Li relation to the States lately in insurrection, 
I do not believe that they have ever, during 
the rebellion, been out of the Union, that they 
are dead in the Union, or that they have even 
slumbered for a single moment from the com- 
mencement of the war to the present time. 
Their State organizations have been constantly 
wielded with terrible effect against this Gov- 
ernment during the entire war. As Stat/s, 
they rebelled ; as States, they did all in their 
power to sustain a rival government and to 
overthrow this ; as States, they were overcome ; 
and, as States, they still live, with all the pas- 
sions that led them into the rebellion, mad- 
dened and embittered by defeat, and using 
their State organizations to drive out or destroy 
every person who was loyal to the Union in 
the hour of its peril. 

That they may do all this and still retain and 
exercise all the rights of the loyal States ; that 
they may send their representatives unbidden 
and almost unchallenged again into the halls 
of the national Legislature, to resume the 
seats they polluted and disgraced )iy treason, 
with the right and privilege of legislating again 
for a Government they failed to destroy, is a 
proposition too monstrous to be stated or re- 
ceived with approval in any loyal community ; 
and if adopted would be offering a premium 
for treason, perjury, and crime. Those only 
who were engaged in the rebellion, and those 
who sympathized with it during its existence, 
can be guilty of promulgating such disloyal 
sentiments and opinions. Certain it is, no one 
connected with the late Administration, and I 
trust for the honor of humanity that no one 
connected with the present Administration, has, 
ever indulged such a thought. The criminal 
cannot pronounce his own pardon and absolu- 
tion. It must come from a higher and purer 
fountain. .The Government that has been 
sinned against, and whose laws have been de- 
fied and disregarded, is the only power that 
can prescribe the terms upon which forfeited 
rights can be restored or resumed. 
The power of the General Government, as 



^ A<^\^ S^D 



/' 



the successful party in war, to dictate such 
terms and enforce such conditions as shall be 
just in relation to the reorganization of these 
State governments, can be readily justified by 
the law of nations. 

I read from Vattel, at page 388 : 

"The whole right of the conqueror is derived from 
justifiable self-defense. He may, in the first place, 
do himself justice respeetins the object which had 
given rise to the war, and indemnify himself for the 
expenses and damages he has sustained by it; he 
may, according to the exigency of the case, subject 
the nation to punishment by way of example; he 
may even, if prudence so require, render her incapa- 
ble of doing mischief with the same ease in future." 

I commend this quotation to all who insist 
that there is "nothing in the recognized or es- 
tablished code of international law which can 
punish a State as a State for any act it may 
perform," and to remind them that it is not 
uncommon to find a State shorn of its sover- 
eignty orpart of its possessions, its government 
modified, and large sums of money exacted 
from it by way of indemnity and punishment 
for acts done as a State. 

But I do not seek to justify the Government 
by the law of nations in exacting from the rebel 
States such guarantees as I may think neces- 
sary before permitting them to resume their 
full relations with the General Government, 
and I disclaim any desire to see the doctrine of 
the conqueror and the conquered as recognized 
by those laws applied to them. But we may at 
least look to those laws so see what the civil- 
ized world regards as right and just in such 
cases, while ample power is found, in my judg- 
ment, in the Constitution of the United States 
to enforce such of those principles as the safety 
and perpetuity of the Government imperiously 
demand. 

By section four of article four it is made the 
duty of the United States to guaranty to every 
State a reptiblican form of government. And 
by section four of article one Congress has 
power — 

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and 
proper for carrying into execution the foregoing i^ow- 
ers, and all other i)owers vested by this Constitution 
in the Government of the United States, or in any 
department or oflieer thereof." 

The governments in these States were en- 
tirely subverted, so far as fidelity to the Union, 
the Constitution, and national Government was 
concerned. Not a vestige of loyalty could be 
found in any official position. To show how 
perfect and entire was the destruction of these 
governments, I read from the proclamation of 
the President, drawn up with great care and 
issued by him for the purpose of securing a re- 
organization of the government in each of tliese 
States. These proclamations not only announce 
the entire overthrow of all civil government 
therein, but claim that the power to reconstruct 
or reestablish them is contained in tliat por- 
tion of the Constitution which enjoins upon the 



United States the duty to guaranty to every 
State a republican form of government : 
"proclamation. 

"Whereas the fourth section of the fourth article 
of the Constitution of the United States declares that 
the United States^ shall guaranty to every State in 
the Union a republican form of government, and shall 
protect each of them against invasion and domestic 
violence; and whereas the President of the United 
States is, by the Constitution, made Commander-in- 
Chief of the Army and Navy, as well as chief execu- 
tive officer of the United States, and is bound by 
solemn oath faithfully to execute the office of Presi- 
dent of the United States, and to take care that the 
laws be faithfully executed; and whereas the rebel- 
lion which has been waged by a portion of the pcoijlc 
of the United States against the properly constituted 
authorities of the (jrovernmcnt thereof, in the most 
violent and revolting form, but whose organized and 
armed forces have now been almost entirely overcome, 
has in its revolutionary progress deprived the i)eople 

of the State of , of all civil government; and 

whereas it becomes necessary and proper to carry out 
and enforce the obligations of the United States to 
the people of , in securing them in the enjoy- 
ment of a republican form of government : 

" Now, therefore, in obedience to the high and sol- 
emn duties imposed upon me by the Constitution of 
the United States and forthe purpose of enablingthe 
loyal people of said State to organize a State gov- 
ernment whereby justice may be established, domes- 
tic tranquillity insured, and loyal citizens protected 
in all their rights of life, liberty, and property, I, 
Andrew Johnson, Presidentof theUnited States.and 
Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the 
United States, do hereby appoint provis- 
ional governor of the State of , whose duty it 

shall be at the earliest practicable period to prescribe 
such rules and regulations as may be necessary and 
proper for convening a convention composed of del- 
egates to be chosen by that portion of the people of 
said State who are loyal to the United States, and no 
others, for the purpose of altering or amending the 
constitution thereof, and with authority to exercise 
within the limits of said State all the powers neces- 
sary and proper to enable such loyal people of the 

State of to restore said State to its constitutional 

relations to the Federal Government, and to present 
such a republican form of State government as will 
entitle the State to the guarantee of theUnited States 
therefor, and its people to protection by the United 
States against invasion, insurrection, and domestic 
violence: Provided, That in any election that may 
be hereafter held for choosing delegates to any State 
convention as aforesaid, no person shall be qualified 
as an elector or shall be eligible as a member of such 
convention, unless heshall have previously taken and 
subscribed the oath of amnesty, as set forth in the 
President's proclamation of May 29, 18(35, and is a 
voter qualified as prescribed by the constitution and 

laws of the State of in force immediately before 

the — day of 1861, the date of the so-called ordi- 
nance of secession. And the said convention when 
convened, or the Legislature that may be thereafter 
assembled, will prescribe the qualifications of elect- 
ors and the eligibility of persons to hold otEce under 
the constitution and laws of the State, a power the 
people of the several States composing the Federal 
Union have rightfully exercised from the origin of 
the Government to the present time." 

Under these proclamations the President and 
the officers appointed by him have gone forward 
in the process of reconstructing the State gov- 
ernments. Conventions have been called and 
held; constitutions altered and amended; mem- 
Ijers of the Legislatures and other State officers 
elected ; Representatives and Senators chosen 
to represent the States in Congress; and during 
the entire time the right to determine when tha 
officers thus elected should enter upon the du 



6 



ties of their respective offices, to set aside elec- 
tions, and also to set aside or disregard laws 
passed by some of these Legislatures, has been 
claimed and exercised by the President in the 
most direct and pointed manner.' 

Although I see in the proceedings of the 
President in the reorganization of these State 
governments some of the dangers which the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania who sits near 
me [Mr. Williams] has so vividly described, 
and though I may have desired that other quali- 
fications for electors had been prescribed, I do 
not on the whole regret the course taken by the 
President, because it gave the people of those 
States the opportunity of shovving to the world 
what they would do if again trusted with unre- 
stricted power. 

In no other way could they have shown so 
well their entire unfitness to be trusted at pres- 
ent with the sacred responsibilities and duties 
of a republican government. If trembling and 
shrinking loyalty in the person of colored men 
had been permitted to come to the polls, it might 
have modified the exhibition of hatred for the 
freedman, now so apparent and intense. Then 
we might have been deceived. Now there is 
no excuse for shutting our eyes against the evi- 
dence of disloyalty, so apparent that he that 
runs may read. The President has labored 
patriotically and earnestly, I doubt not, to bring 
about a better state of affairs, but his labors 
have not been blessed in a very great degree. 
The seed he has scattered has fallen upon stony 
ground and has produced a very inconsiderable 
crop, if loyalty is to be the standard by which it 
is measured. In his annual message, at the 
opening of the present session of Congress, he 
says : ■ 

■'The States attemfjting to secede placed themselves 
in a situation where their vitality was impaired, but 
not extinguished; their function.s suspended, butnot 
destroyed." 

Who is to determine when these suspended 
functions and this impaired vitality are re- 
stored? Has Congress nothing to do with it 
except to pass, each House for itself, upon the 
certificates of election of members claiming 
seats in such House? The decision of this ques- 
tion rests, in my judgment, with the law-making 
power, and requires the sanction and assent of 
the entire law-making power of the Govern- 
ment. In no other way can the rule be uni- 
form. Separate and independent action might 
leave one rule prevailing in this House, another 
in the Senate, and still another with the ex- 
ecutive department. These States are entitled 
to full and absolute recognition by each of these 
departments of the Government, or else they 
are not entitled to recognition by either. Am- 
ple power exists under the eighth section of 
article one of the Constitution of the United 
States, above referred to, to pass any lav/ ne- 
cessary to carry outand enforce the guarantee of 
a republican government to each State, and to 



recognize such government when established: 
and this can only be done by legislation, and 
not by either department of the Government 
acting independently and alone. 

When shall these States be admitted to rep- 
resentation on this floor and to all other rights 
of loyal States? My simple answer is, when their 
governments are republican, their people loyal, 
and they send loyal men to represent them. 
There has been a time during this rebellion 
when no one will claim that they were entitled 
to representation here. They certainly were not 
when fully represented by the action and con- 
sent of their respective Legislatures and nearly 
their entire j^opulation in the rebel congress. 
Representation there wa^ only one evidence of 
their disloyalty and unfitness for representa- 
tion here. At the last session of the Thirty- 
Eighth Congress, this House without division 
passed a resolution declaring that they were not 
entitled to participate in the election of Presi- 
dent and Vice President. Have the sentiments 
of the people of these States changed since that 
vote was taken ? Where is the evidence of such 
change and of their present loyalty? Do you 
point to the adoption by their Legislatures of 
the constitutional amendment abolishing sla- 
very? Governor Humphreys, in his message, 
says it was forced upon them by Federal bayo- 
nets. The plea of action under duress is al- 
ready made in some quarters and a conditional 
ratification is attempted in others. Are we to 
assume that these Legislatures, elected as they 
were, represent a majority of the people of their 
respective States ; and that they will not be en- 
tirely repudiated by the people and their acts 
declared usurpations ? Who can assure us that 
these mushroom governments that have grown 
up in a night in the hot-bed of executive influ- 
ence can stand one hour of solar heat and light? 
Above all, who can satisfy us that there is a 
majority of loyal men in any one of these States 
feady and willing and able to sustain a loyal 
government. A loyal people and a loyal gov- 
ernment must exist in all cases as the founda- 
tion of the right to representation. 

But it is asked, and with great force and by 
men whose opinions are entitled to considera- 
tion and respect, why not admit loyal men 
from these States who are claiming seats in this 
House? I hope the time is not distant when 
we shall find such a state of facts existing in 
some of these States as will justify their admis- 
sion. No one can be more anxious than I am 
to see the time when we shall be honored by 
the presence as members of this House of some 
of the loyal men from those States. I know 
their trials, struggles, and sacrifices for the 
Union, and that their loyalty was unquestioned 
when secession and treason swept over their 
States and strong men bowed before the storm. 
I give them all honor for their fidelity and 
courage. But there is ,a question of principle 
involved in the admission of representatives as 



loyal as the best of them that we must not over- 
look. It is not merely loyal representatives 
that we want, but loyal constituencies behind 
them. Are the States they claim to represent 
loyal to-day. and were they so when they were 
elected? Have the lo}'al people of either of 
these States the power to sustain a State gov- 
ernment without the aid of Federal bayonets'? 
Can they live to-day in safety in either of these 
States if the United States Government with- 
draws its protection? Is not hostility to the 
Government as wide spread and unyielding as 
during the palmy days of the rebellion; and as 
soon as the United States Army is withdrawn 
will not the State governments pass into the 
hands of disloyal men who are waiting only for 
this last and full recognition of their rights to 
wipe out, by unfriendly legislation or otherwise, 
every person, white as well as black, suspected 
of unconditional loyalty to the General Gov- 
ernment? 

The battle-fields of those States are covered 
with the sacred ashes of men who left their 
homes in northern and loyal States and laid 
down their lives that this Government might 
be preserved, and with it the power to protect 
loyal men everywhere. In defense of that Gov- 
ernment, they marched down to the harvest of 
death side by side with loyal men from south- 
ern States, meeting a common enemy and 
finding a common grave. The sons and brothers 
of your constituents and mine, Mr. Speaker, 
arc sleeping there the sleep that knows no 
waking. The sacrifice required was great, but 
it was freely made. We bound the fillets 
around their temples and laid them upon the 
altar. Do not ask us, before the grass has grown 
upon the grave of the nation's dead, to take a 
4,: course that may compel us to repent the awful 
'*■ sacrifice. You must not require it at our hands. 
We cannot afford to give up the control of this 
Government to rebels and rebel sympathizers 
to be used in crushing out loyal men. I fear 
if it is now surrendered that very soon we shall 
again hear from the loyal people in each of 
these States the Macedonian cry, "Come over 
and help us." We have a higher duty to per- 
form than merely to gratify political or personal 
friends here or elsewhere. We owe a duty to 
our country and the meu who ■ have laid their 
lives and treasure upon their country's altar, 
that requires us to see that so much blood and 
treasure shall not be spent in vain. 

The presence of United States soldiers all 
over the South is conclusive evidence, if any 
= v/ere needed, that the President does not believe 
that civil governments could be maintained 
without them. The report of Major General 
Carl Schurz shows an entire want of loyalty in 
these States. And Lieutenant General Grant, 
in his report made at the same time, says: 

" I did not meet any one, either those holding places 
under the Government or citizens of the southern 
fctatcs, who think it practicable to withdraw the mili- 



tary from the South at present. The wliitc and tho 
black mutually require tho protection of the General 
Governmcut." 

The Attorney General of the United States, 
in a letter sent to the Senate by the President 
on the 10th of January last, and which of course 
has the approval of the President, says "a state 
of war still exists over the territory in rebellion, ' ' 
and that "peaceful relations between the Gov- 
ernment and the States have not been restored. ' ' 
It is only necessary, in addition, to refer to the 
infamous legislation enacted by the Legislatures 
of many of these reconstructed States, and the 
evidence taken before the joint committee of 
Congress at the present session and ;-ecently re- 
ported to this House, to show how wide spread 
and universal is the feeling of hostility to the 
General Government in most if not all of these 
States. Who, under such circumstances, can 
consistently with his duty to a loyal constituency 
vote to recognize as reconstructed, with the 
right of representation in the national Legisla- 
ture, States that, in addition to all this, select 
men to represent them who have distinguished 
themselves in the seiwlce of the rebellion, and 
who have held some of the highest offices in the 
government organized to secure its success ? I 
cannot do it, and I am glad of an opportunity 
to say In this connection that no person, with 
my consent, shall ever hold office under the 
Government of the United States who has in 
any way voluntarily aided the rebellion. 

Before admitting these States to a participa- 
tion in the law-making power of the Govern- 
ment, we must, in the language of Vattel, above 
referred to, do ourselves justice and render 
them "incapable of doing mischief with the 
same ease In future." AVe must do justice to 
the public creditor who has furnished the Gov- 
ernment the- means to carry on this war and 
give him assurance doubly sure that come what 
may, the debt created for that purpose shall 
be paid to the "uttermost farthing." The 
debt created to aid the rebellion must be repu- 
diated and with it the political heresies that 
engendered the war. Representation and the 
ballot must go hand in hand, and the fulfill- 
ment of the pledges to the freedmen made in 
the emancipation proclamation must be placed 
beyond any contingency. 

President Johnson in his annual message 
says it is "not too much to ask of these States 
thatthey should ratify the constitutional amend- 
ment abolishing slavery as a pledge of per- 
petual loyalty and peace. ' ' If this may be re- 
quired by the President, may not something 
be asked by Congress looking to the same ob- 
ject, ' ' perpetuafloyalty and peace ?' ' Let me 
refer once more to Vattel on this subject. At 
page 391 he says : 

" It has been observed that we may be obliged, if 
not externally, yet in conscience, and by the laws of 
equity, to restore to a third party the booty we have 
secured out of the hands of an enemy who has taten 



8 



it from him in an unjust.war. The obligation is more 
certain and more extensive with regard to a people 
■whom our enemy li;is unjustly oppressed. For a peo- 
ple thus spoiled of their liberty never renounce the 
hope of reeovering it. If they have not voluntarily 
iueorpdrated themselves with theStato by which they 
have been subdued, if they have not freelj' aided him 
in the war tigainst us, we certainly ought so.to use our 
victory as not merely to give them a new master, but 
to break their chains. To deliver an oppressed peo- 
ple is anpble fruit of victory. Itisa valuableadvan- 
tage gained thus to acquire a faithful friend." 

How beautifully the dictates of international 
law harmonize with our duty to tlie freedmau. 
"To deliver an oppressed people is a noble 
fruit of victory. ' ' These people are nominally 
free, but really slaves. We must, in the lan- 
guage of the emancipa'iin"-! proclamation, "rec- 
ognize and maintain thc:ir freedom. " ' This duty, 
repudiated elsewhere, appeals to us with a 
double jjower. Whatever others may do, w-e 
must neither hesitate nor turn back from its 
full performance. By us it must neither be 



repudiated, evaded, or compromised. The right 
of these people to life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness, to protection of person and prop- 
erty, to equal and exact justice and privileges 
before the law, and in all courts and proceed- 
ings, must be freely conceded and amply guar- 
antied. When these things shall be done, and 
the rebellion suppressed in fact as well as name ; 
when loyalty shall be the rule instead of the 
exception ; when the States lately in rebellion 
shall recognize and enforce the great truths of 
the Declaration of Independence, and guar- 
anty to all their people, without distinction of 
race or color, the blessings and privileges of 
free governments, then will our (xovernment 
have reached the position designed for it by its 
founders ; then will it have fully entered upon 
that mission of beneficence and justice which is 
to regenerate a continent and bless the world. 
And then, and not till then, can we truly say, 
it is well with us and well with our country. 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 1 


■! II 1 1 II i 1 1 1 i i 

013 744 5013 


^ . 



